Manzano v. Tiro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the City of Cagayan de Oro's attempt to expropriate land belonging to Constancio Manzano, Felicissimo Nagac, and the spouses Felix and Corazon Cahoy. The intended purpose for the expropriation was to establish the City Engineer's Office and Equipment Depot. Procedural History: The case originated from the City of Cagayan de Oro's expropriation efforts. The matter reached the Supreme Court via a petition filed by the landowners. However, subsequent filings indicated issues with the authorization for the petition. The Petition: The petition was filed by Constancio Manzano, Felicissimo Nagac, and the spouses Felix and Corazon Cahoy. Felicissimo Nagac subsequently filed a manifestation to be stricken as a petitioner, asserting he had not authorized the petition. The Cahoy spouses also filed a motion to delete their names for the same reason. Finally, Constancio Manzano filed a motion to withdraw the petition, acknowledging the City's right to expropriate his land. The Supreme Court granted all these prayers and dismissed the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the City of Cagayan de Oro can expropriate the lands of the petitioners for its City Engineer's Office and Equipment Depot. Whether the petition filed by the petitioners should be dismissed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the prayers of each and all of the petitioners to withdraw their petition and dismissed the instant petition for the reasons stated by the petitioners. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the City of Cagayan de Oro can expropriate the lands of the petitioners for its City Engineer's Office and Equipment Depot: This issue became moot and academic due to the subsequent actions of the petitioners. Felicissimo Nagac and the Spouses Felix and Corazon Cahoy manifested that they did not authorize the filing of the petition. Constancio Manzano subsequently filed a motion to withdraw the petition, explicitly stating that the City of Cagayan de Oro could indeed expropriate his land. Given these circumstances, the Court did not delve into the merits of the expropriation itself but rather acted upon the petitioners' collective request to withdraw. On Whether the petition filed by the petitioners should be dismissed: The Supreme Court granted the dismissal of the petition. This decision was predicated on the separate motions and manifestations filed by each petitioner. Felicissimo Nagac and the Spouses Felix and Corazon Cahoy sought to be stricken as petitioners, asserting lack of authorization for the filing. Constancio Manzano, the remaining petitioner, moved for the withdrawal of the entire petition, conceding the validity of the expropriation. The Court found these reasons sufficient to grant the withdrawal and dismiss the case, thereby respecting the parties' wishes and the procedural posture of the case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' motions to withdraw their petition and dismissed the case. This action was based on the individual reasons provided by each petitioner for their withdrawal, including lack of authorization and the subsequent agreement that the expropriation could proceed. The Court acknowledged and granted these requests, thereby terminating the proceedings.